CASE: David Morrison v. State of Uttarakhand
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Shri Alok Kumar Verma
On 13 January, allowing a foreign national to deposit a reasonable amount of cash instead of executing surety bonds in order to secure bail, the Uttarakhand High Court noted that Section 445 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is intended to help an individual who is unable to find surety .
While allowing him to take recourse of Section 445 of CrPC, Justice Alok Kumar Verma, further noted,
“The applicant-accused is a foreigner and he is not able to furnish sureties. The same does not debar him from being admitted to bail.”
However, if a person so directed to execute the bond is unable to provide surety either with surety or without surety, then taking recourse to Section 445 of the Code, he/she may be allowed to deposit a sum of money or government promissory note (instead of executing security bonds to obtain bail).
Facts of the Case
The Court heard an appeal by the applicant-accused (a foreign national) to set aside the order given by ACJM, Kashipur on 08 October 2020, refusing his application for bail after depositing the sum of cash in lieu of executing the surety bond.
Previously, on 23 July 2020, the High Court granted regular bail for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B of the I.P.C. Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act in connection with Case Crime No.44 of 2019. The High Court granted the above-mentioned Bail Application on the condition that the applicant-accused must furnish surety bonds.
However, since his passport had been deposited with the magistrate concerned and the applicant was a foreigner, he was not in a position to arrange sureties. Therefore, instead of executing surety bonds, he offered to deposit cash sums. In the order dated 08 October 2020, the ACJM, Kashipur, dismissed the said prayer of the applicant-accused.
Order of the Court
The Court observed that he was directed to furnish surety bonds in the first instance and promised to deposit cash for sure when he was unable to execute surety bonds.
Furthermore, the Court stated that Section 445 CrPC is intended for the advantage of a person who is unable to find a surety and simply because the applicant-accused is a foreign and, therefore, is unable to provide surety, the same does not preclude him from being admitted to bail.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the order passed by ACJM, Kashipur in Criminal Case 4069 of 2019 dated 08 October 2020 was set aside.
Instead of performing surety bonds, the applicant-accused was allowed to deposit the cash sum, a reasonable amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The application was allowed.